Electric Van Sales: Stellantis warns of plant closures as e-van sales stall, ETHRWorld
Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals. Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox.
All about ETHRWorld industry right on your smartphone! Download the ETHRWorld App and get the Realtime updates and Save your favourite articles.
Hordain: US-European automaker Stellantis may close factories in the coming months because sales of electric light commercial vehicles are not finding enough clients, its European chief warned Wednesday.Jean-Philippe Imparato also said EU targets for increasing the bloc's fleet of e-van vehicles would be impossible to reach, putting the company at risk of billions of euros in fines."We're just a few months' away from disaster," Imparato said at the Stellantis factory in Hordain, northern France, where around 2,600 employees produce commercial vans for the group's Citroen, Peugeot, Fiat and Opel brands.The company has said it faces fines of 2.6 billion euros ($3.1 billion) over the three years to end-2027 if e-vans remain at the current level of nine percent of the European market.It says EU targets call for e-vans to represent 13 percent of the overall fleet in 2025 before rising to 24 percent in 2027."Everybody tells me, 'Don't worry, you won't have to pay them'," Imparato said."But for now all I have are statements. There's no sense of urgency," he said."If I have to pay this penalty, I shut down factories, it's inevitable," he said, because the targets mean Stellantis would have to cut back on production of diesel vans.The company also has van factories in Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain.Stellantis is one of Europe's biggest producers of light commercial vehicles, used for transport of both goods and people.European automakers are bristling as e-vehicle sales lag despite Brussels' target that they make up 100 percent of new sales by 2035.The automotive sector is the jewel in Europe's industrial crown, employing around 13 million people and contributing around seven percent to the bloc's GDP.In May, EU countries gave final approval to a reprieve for European carmakers over new emission targets, as they seek to balance climate goals with support for the struggling industry.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Wall Street Banks Lose Ground in Europe as Tariffs Spook Clients
(Bloomberg) -- As US President Donald Trump has ratcheted up his rhetoric against trading partners in Europe — corporates across the continent are taking notice. As a result, some companies have begun to diversify their banking relationships away from the giants of Wall Street, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That's been a boon for Europe's leading banks, which have been actively vying to win the extra business. 'Some players are saying that it's better to go to European or French investment banks for advice on financing or mergers and acquisitions,' said Arnaud Petit, managing director of Edmond de Rothschild's corporate finance business. Deutsche Bank AG Chief Executive Officer Christian Sewing sees similar in potential clients' requests for proposals: 'It is happening every day with client wins and RFPs and new business that we put on.' So far this year, roughly half of the euro bond deals from non-US companies did not involve any of the five biggest US banks, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That's up five percentage points from a year earlier. For sterling bonds the gap has widened even further — Wall Street banks were shut out of just 47% of deals throughout all of last year. So far this year, though, they've been excluded from 64% of them. The emergence of the ability of a few European banks 'to be able to offer competitive services and advice to clients' has created a desire among clients to switch, according to UBS Group AG Chief Executive Sergio Ermotti. 'We believe we are well placed to continue to benefit from that diversification.' Even before Trump's trade war kicked off in earnest, the biggest of the US banks warned that it was starting to see an impact. By April, JPMorgan Chase & Co. had already lost 'a couple' of bond deals tied to the tariff uncertainty, with companies opting for local banks instead, Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said in an interview with Fox Business at the time. He warned that the tumult was 'causing cumulative damage including huge anger at the United States.' The latest example of a win for non-US banks came this week, when Zurich-based insurer Chubb Ltd. issued an offshore yuan-bond. It opted for Standard Chartered Plc to help take on the deal. The bank was told: 'We want to bank with the regional champions, rather than just with global banks in general,' Standard Chartered Chief Financial Officer Diego de Giorgi said. 'Because we think that you guys bring specific skills in a world that is fragmenting.' Chubb is not an exception. The effect is most pronounced in Asia, where economies are expected to be hard hit by the changing trade regimes and the re-routing of supply chains, said Ruchirangad Agarwal, head of corporate banking for Asia and the Middle East at the research firm Coalition Greenwich. 'The willingness of companies in Asia to change their transaction bank is currently at a high: a third of them plan to issue a new RFP within the next 12 months,' Agarwal said. Already, US lenders' market share in financing trade for Chinese companies has dropped in recent years - from 12% in 2017 to about 7% share now, he added. 'We expect to see heightened uncertainty and customer churn at US banks as large corporates take an active risk management stance on FX, interest rates, counterparty risk, geopolitical tensions and supply chain disruptions,' said Martin Smith, head of markets analysis at East & Partners. BNP Paribas SA, meanwhile, has gained more share than any other player in Asia, Smith said. 'There are clearly strategic opportunities in the tectonic shifts that the world has been seeing in recent months' Societe Generale SA CEO's Slawomir Krupa said of companies looking to shift toward European banking partners. 'The logic behind this form of risk diversification has become more apparent for companies.' --With assistance from Harry Wilson, Claudia Cohen and Noele Illien. More stories like this are available on
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Has India Stopped Buying Oil From Russia As Trump Claimed? What We Know So Far
Last Updated: The US has imposed 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods entering America, along with a separate penalty related to purchases of Russian oil and military hardware United States President Donald Trump on Saturday claimed in Washington that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. 'I understand that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard, I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens," he said. Days ago, the US imposed 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods entering America, along with a separate penalty related to purchases of Russian oil and military hardware. Trump also warned that countries buying Russian oil could face tariffs as high as 100 per cent if Moscow does not agree to a peace deal by mid-August. In a strongly worded post on Truth Social, Trump lashed out at India's trade practices and its reliance on Russian defence and energy sectors. 'Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia's largest buyer of energy, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to stop the killing in Ukraine — All things not good!" How much oil does India buy from Russia? As of 2025, Russia remains India's largest supplier of crude oil, accounting for approximately 35–36% of India's total oil imports. Official figures indicate that India imported an average of 1.75–1.76 million barrels per day (mb/d) of Russian crude during the first half of 2025 and the entire fiscal year 2024–25. In May 2025, Russian oil imports peaked at around 1.96 mb/d, the highest monthly level in nearly a year. Is buying Russian oil illegal? Sources told ANI that Russian oil has never been sanctioned, instead, it was subjected to a G7/EU price-cap mechanism designed to limit revenue while ensuring global supplies continued to flow. India acted as a responsible global energy actor, ensuring markets remain liquid and prices stable. India's purchases have remained fully legitimate and within the framework of international norms. 'Had India not absorbed discounted Russian crude combined with OPEC+ production cuts of 5.86 mb/d, global oil prices could have surged well beyond the March 2022 peak of US$137/bbl, intensifying inflationary pressures worldwide," sources told ANI. It is also pertinent to note that Russian oil has never been sanctioned and it is still not sanctioned by either US or EU. Indian OMCs have not been buying Iranian or Venezuelan crude which is actually sanctioned by the US. OMCs have always complied with the price cap of $60 for Russian oil recommended by the US. Recently EU has recommended a price cap of $47.6 dollars for Russian crude which will be enforced from September. Commenting on European Union's import of Russian origin liquified natural gas (LNG) during this period, sources added, 'EU was the largest importer of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) during this period, buying 51% of Russia's LNG exports, followed by China at 21% and Japan at 18%. Similarly, for pipeline gas, the EU remained the top buyer with a 37% share, followed by China (30%) and Turkey (27%)." Is India buying oil from Russia or not? top videos View all With Reuters, ANI Inputs About the Author News Desk The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk More Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 03, 2025, 18:21 IST News explainers Has India Stopped Buying Oil From Russia As Trump Claimed? What We Know So Far Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
The EU needn't have yielded to the US on a trade deal
When US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shook hands at Trump's Scottish golf resort last week, they weren't just announcing a new trade deal—they were formalizing Europe's economic and ideological surrender. By agreeing to 15% tariffs on most exports to the US, the EU has capitulated to Trump's zero-sum world-view. In doing so, it has abandoned the principles of multilateralism that have long guided global trade. The economic consequences will likely be immediate and severe. European exporters now face tariffs nearly ten times higher than the previous trade-weighted average of 1.6%. Volkswagen alone has reported a $1.5 billion hit due to higher US tariffs. Also Read: Global shake-up: America's retreat spells a big opportunity for Europe But this is just part of the problem. The real damage is what the EU agreed to pay for the 'privilege' of maintaining access to the US market: buying $750 billion worth of US energy over three years and investing another $600 billion in the US economy. These staggering sums will inevitably divert resources from European development and innovation while legitimizing bilateral coercion over the multilateral rules-based World Trade Organization system. As critics have rightly pointed out, this massive outflow comes directly at the expense of domestic investment. What makes the EU's surrender especially troubling is how unnecessary it was. As America's largest economic partner, the EU has considerable leverage. The bloc's $270 billion services deficit with the US offered clear avenues for retaliation, from digital taxes to restrictions on American tech giants. Also Read: The IMF's 'World Economic Outlook' is too coy for a Trump-shaken world Weeks earlier, anticipating a stalemate, European policymakers had prepared counter-tariffs targeting $107 billion worth of American goods. But the EU had far more potent weapons at its disposal. Its Anti-Coercion Instrument, for example, could have barred US companies from government contracts, revoked intellectual-property rights and imposed broader trade restrictions. Yet, national leaders, fearing Trump's retaliation and under pressure from domestic industries eager to maintain access to the US market, refused to authorize Von der Leyen to use any of these tools, forcing her to negotiate from a position of weakness. The contrast with other US trading partners could not be starker. When the UK secured a 10% tariff rate from Trump in May, European leaders expressed concern about accepting similar terms. Now, they hail 15% tariffs on EU exports as a diplomatic breakthrough. Britain, acting alone, negotiated better terms than the EU as a whole. Also Read: How Trump got the upper hand over the EU on tariffs This failure exposes the fundamental weakness of European governance. Lacking a true EU-wide governance system, the bloc remains incapable of translating competing national agendas into a unified position. With Von der Leyen hamstrung by member states prioritizing narrow domestic interests over European cohesion, the result was a deal that pleases no one but Trump and locks Europe into a state of structured dependency. The EU's failure to push back against Trump is especially troubling given its stated goal of achieving strategic autonomy. Some may argue that the deal—technically not a formal trade agreement, but rather a set of statements outlining an ongoing negotiation process—buys time. By appeasing Trump, the argument goes, the Commission has maintained transatlantic ties while creating space for future carve-outs. But if this were truly a time-buying strategy, we would expect the EU to take concrete steps to advance strategic autonomy: boosting defence spending, accelerating supply-chain diversification and investing in retaliatory capabilities. Instead, after years of pledging to reduce reliance on foreign powers, EU leaders chose to replace Russian energy imports with American supplies and commit to massive purchases of US military equipment. Also Read: Mint Explainer: Why does the EU keep sanctioning Russia? Europe's subordination both reflects and reinforces the continent's dependence on US power. It has created a structural imbalance that extends across defence, trade and energy, leaving Europe in a state of permanent vassalization. Trump's ability to extract sweeping economic concessions and defence-spending commitments shows how effectively the US can weaponize Europe's security anxieties to pursue broader geopolitical objectives. The $600 billion investment pledge, much of it earmarked for military-equipment purchases, forces Europe to subsidize American defence contractors while undermining its own industrial base. By giving in to Trump's demands, the EU validated Trump's transactional approach, emboldening not only future American administrations but also other global powers eager to turn trade into an instrument of geopolitical coercion. While the immediate crisis may have passed, the long-term damage to EU credibility and autonomy will be long-lasting. The widespread perception that Europe surrenders without resistance will undoubtedly invite further challenges to European interests. Until European leaders are able to break the cycle of dependency by empowering EU institutions to act decisively against external coercion, these humiliating capitulations will only multiply, reducing the continent to a prosperous yet powerless appendage of the US empire. ©2025/Project Syndicate The author is professor of European Union Law at HEC Paris and visiting professor at the College of Europe in Bruges and Natolin.
